A United Methodist pastor was convicted Monday of breaking church law by officiating his son's same-sex wedding and could be defrocked after a high-profile trial that has rekindled debate over the denomination's policy on gay marriage.

The Methodist church put the Rev. Frank Schaefer on trial in southeastern Pennsylvania, accusing him of breaking his pastoral vows by presiding over the 2007 ceremony in Massachusetts.

A Methodist trial resembles a secular trial in many ways, with counsel representing each side, a judge and jury, opening statements and closing arguments, and testimony and evidence. Schaefer can appeal a conviction, but neither the church nor the person who brought the charge may appeal an acquittal.

The 13-member jury convicted Schaefer on two charges: That he officiated a gay wedding, and that he showed “disobedience to the order and discipline of the United Methodist Church.”

The jury will reconvene Tuesday morning for the penalty phase, where Schaefer faces punishment ranging from a reprimand to losing his ministerial credentials.

The church’s lawyer, the Rev. Christopher Fisher, told the jury that Schaefer clearly violated the Book of Discipline. He said the complainant, Jon Boger  a member of Schaefer’s congregation  was dismayed and shocked when he learned this year about the ceremony.

Fisher used his closing argument to condemn homosexuality as immoral and said Schaefer had no right to break a Methodist law that bans pastors from performing same-sex marriages just because he disagreed with church teaching. He told jurors they were duty-bound to convict.

“You’ll give an account for that at the last day, as we all will,” he told the jury, to audible gasps from spectators

5
posted on 11/18/2013 5:34:04 PM PST
by xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)

Yes, there's hope. At our church's 125th anniversary celebration yesterday, our district superintendent, a refugee from Vietnam, who preached the sermon called on the church to remain true to the Word of God as expressed in the Bible.

The 13-member jury convicted Schaefer on two charges: That he officiated a gay wedding, and that he showed disobedience to the order and discipline of the United Methodist Church. .... The churchs lawyer, the Rev. Christopher Fisher, told the jury that Schaefer clearly violated the Book of Discipline. .... Fisher used his closing argument to condemn homosexuality as immoral and said Schaefer had no right to break a Methodist law that bans pastors from performing same-sex marriages just because he disagreed with church teaching. He told jurors they were duty-bound to convict.

Youll give an account for that at the last day, as we all will, he told the jury, to audible gasps from spectators

As with any book of rules, saying that the rules are optional absolutely changes the game. So, you’re right. Allowing the homosexual marriage opens up anything and everything to include the baptism you referenced.

It also means that conservative pastors can ignore rules they don’t like.

9
posted on 11/18/2013 5:47:40 PM PST
by xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)

And why is it that women who like women but dont like men have at least one of them be the husband??? Never could understand that.

Are you saying that women who like women STILL marry a man?I don't understand it either. Also it is viciously cruel for her to marry a man when she prefers women. The union is doomed. Shows how little regard she has for the feelings of her husband...and the horrors in store for their children, if there are any.

No, I mean two lesbians who forsake men because they like women. But then one of the 2 women (or both) begin to act, dress, and take the role of the man/husband in the lesbian relationship.

If the “wife” in the lesbian relationship is ok with the lesbian playing the role of “man”, then why doesn’t she just get a man? And if the man in the lesbian relationship doesn’t like men, then why is she being a man?

It’s all so confusing.

22
posted on 11/18/2013 6:24:02 PM PST
by xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)

The article states that "three of his four children are gay." Not stated in the article was whether this was three male children of four.. But either way, one has to question what gender-identifying example these children had from their dad...

The three homosexual children also made a choice...though "children" aren't capable of really understanding the ramifications and consequences of choosing homosexuality.

Apparently the "choice" is made in a person's early to mid-teens. Do YOU think the three choice-homosexual children have a CLUE as to what they are choosing??

I wonder if the children will "change their tune" when they are out on their own. If not, then maybe it's better that they never reproduce the stupidity they've chosen.

I have never understood why men choose men as partners. There is no such thing as a gay-homosexual gene so its a choice homosexuals make. What on earth makes them choose same sex unions?

One thing for sure, it's part of the human condition. It even happens in the animal world sometimes. I must say I have known and cherished several gay friends, men and women. I've concluded that there are two classes:

-- "Gay" folks who subconciously (or consciously!) choose that orientation for shock value or to make a statement (probably happening a lot in today's sad, confused, ignorant and lost youth)

-- Those relative few who are down-deep homosexual, had been even when they were kids and didn't recognize it except gradually, along with friends and family who loved them. I think how that kind of homosexual deals with it is between him/her and God, and my role is to act like a Christian, and look discreetly away when necessary.

Yet as important, I also have a role to defend the right to peacefully turn away and reject if one chooses the prospect of open, celebrated homosexuality in our midst, especially among children. To me, the conservative Christian doesn't seek law outlawing open homosexuality, but rather seeks to curtail law that prevents Christians from quietly, lovingly, refusing to accommodate open, declared homosexuality if they choose.

Limited government Christian conservatism says "Do away with laws punishing the exercise of personal, peaceful Christian values." No law is going to do away with homosexuality -- it's part of being in the human race. The best way to deal with it is just by being Christian.

No, I mean two lesbians who forsake men because they like women. But then one of the 2 women (or both) begin to act, dress, and take the role of the man/husband in the lesbian relationship. If the wife in the lesbian relationship is ok with the lesbian playing the role of man, then why doesnt she just get a man? And if the man in the lesbian relationship doesnt like men, then why is she being a man? Its all so confusing.

Ah, gotcha. I've seen that silliness and it IS silliness. Don't be confused. They are play acting different roles of dominance and submissive. Obviously that should tell you how screwed up and immature is their image of marriage and how stupid it is for one of them to be the "dominant male."

It's a sick relationship what will fade away into acrimony and heart break. It also sounds a lot to me like TREMENDOUS immaturity, The poor women really didn't stand a chance. They'll end up on a shrink's couch wondering WHO THEY REALLY ARE.

As a woman, even one who has now and has had lesbian friends ... lesbians creep me out, that's a fact.

I can love them, but ... they creep me out with those very games you're talking about, the role playing and all that. And beyond. It all gives me the heebie-jeebies!!!! Mostly I just feel sorry for them and keep it to myself when I'm around them.

Gay men are totally different from my perspective. I suppose gay men creep guys out a lot more than lesbians do! My brother once declared that he himself was a lesbian trapped in a male body -- I know, old joke, but this was many decades ago, long before I ever heard of anybody else saying that! {^) It was when he met a friend of mine who was very pretty but fancied herself a lesbian (I don't think she really was down deep, but who knows?), and he was desperately seeking a pick-up line!! {^)

One thing for sure, it's part of the human condition. It even happens in the animal world sometimes. I must say I have known and cherished several gay friends, men and women. I've concluded that there are two classes:Yes, it happens because DYSFUNCTION happens. It's not the way we are built. We are build heterosexual. Anything else is a choice. I enjoyed reading your reasons why people choose homosexuality. You ought to write a book. Ooops, that's been done!

-- Those relative few who are down-deep homosexual, had been even when they were kids and didn't recognize it except gradually, along with friends and family who loved them. I think how that kind of homosexual deals with it is between him/her and God, and my role is to act like a Christian, and look discreetly away when necessary.There is no "deep-down homosexual" inclination. It is LEARNED BEHAVIOR, as we are constructed to be heterosexual.

Yet as important, I also have a role to defend the right to peacefully turn away and reject if one chooses the prospect of open, celebrated homosexuality in our midst, especially among children. To me, the conservative Christian doesn't seek law outlawing open homosexuality, but rather seeks to curtail law that prevents Christians from quietly, lovingly, refusing to accommodate open, declared homosexuality if they choose."Quietly, lovingly refusing"?? I had a lesbian boss and HER boss was lesbian. I was told to "try it" and I might "like it." I didn't want to be around those sick people, so I left the job. One of my better moves in life. The first lesbian boss was also a drunk. I did find THAT obnoxious too.

Limited government Christian conservatism says "Do away with laws punishing the exercise of personal, peaceful Christian values." No law is going to do away with homosexuality -- it's part of being in the human race. The best way to deal with it is just by being Christian.Homosexuality is part of DYSFUNCTION in the human race. It is not the way we are built. Check your biology, hormones, etc. Homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, non-sexuality are NOT normal. There is only one way we are built from the genetic code and that is heterosexuality.

However, given that SOME people choose to be non-heterosexual, it is THEIR choice and as long as those lesbian women keep their mitts off of me, I am fine with letting them live their lives. They MUST stay away from children, though, as it's not fair to children to sway them away from God's choice.

I am perfectly content to let our glorious Maker take care of those folks when they finally die and meet Him.

As a woman, even one who has now and has had lesbian friends ... lesbians creep me out, that's a fact. I can love them, but ... they creep me out with those very games you're talking about, the role playing and all that. And beyond. It all gives me the heebie-jeebies!!!! Mostly I just feel sorry for them and keep it to myself when I'm around them.

Gay men are totally different from my perspective. I suppose gay men creep guys out a lot more than lesbians do! My brother once declared that he himself was a lesbian trapped in a male body -- I know, old joke, but this was many decades ago, long before I ever heard of anybody else saying that! {^) It was when he met a friend of mine who was very pretty but fancied herself a lesbian (I don't think she really was down deep, but who knows?), and he was desperately seeking a pick-up line!! {^)

You feel sorry for them. I don't blame you; I do too. I have a gay nail guy, a genius with the finger/toe nails. I've known him for 20 years and have only spoken about homosexuality once. He thinks that he didn't CHOOSE it. I didn't have the heart to tell him otherwise. He's in his 50's and I have no intention of telling him otherwise.

Don't look now, cloudmountain, but you are exhibiting the very kind of Christian behavior I know is the correct way to handling this ugly moral issue! You left the job! Amen!!!!! RIGHT CHOICE!! It is the very definition of "quietly, lovingly refusing" to be part of it. You didn't hit anyone, injure anyone, steal from anyone, or pursue vengeance. You did THE RIGHT THING. Amen!!!

Too bad your employer would have been sued to hell and gone by "civil rights" laws had he ousted your boss for being a lesbian, and an offensive one at that.

I used to have a co-worker who was a lesbian decidedly on the dikey side. Certain things about her I liked, but ... she was confused and lost, proud of her gayness. She made the same kinds of harmless passes and sassy comments to me that a normal guy would do, flirting. I suppose I could have been offended if I'd had the heart, but to tell you the truth, since it didn't affect me in any way, I just ignored it. Ironically, she and the boss were liberal feminists -- but you know what they'd have though of me if I'd gone to a labor attorney and complained of sexual harassment, which it certainly would have qualified as if she was a guy!

A weird thing about lesbians -- the hard-core ones beat the hell out each other. Domestic violence among lesbian "couples" is something else.

I'm sure glad I'm not a lesbian ... or sure glad I never felt compelled to choose to be one. "There but for the grace of God ..."

A weird thing about lesbians -- the hard-core ones beat the hell out each other. Domestic violence among lesbian "couples" is something else.Yes, they do beat each other up. It's their own self-hatred at what they are. They know to their CORE that they are abysmally abnormal and they don't like it.

I'm sure glad I'm not a lesbian ... or sure glad I never felt compelled to choose to be one. "There but for the grace of God ..."God didn't MAKE any lesbians. They ALL chose it. Those girls/women chose poorly and there was, apparently, NO ONE in their lives to let them know how WRONG their choice was. THAT is the saddest part of all. I had tons of protection and I thank God for my family. I never would chose something so diametrically opposed to my every fiber of being. It would be like choosing Satan. Yikes, eternal damnation. I don't even like the SOUND of that!

Apparently the "choice" is made in a person's early to mid-teens. Do YOU think the three choice-homosexual children have a CLUE as to what they are choosing??

Yes, that seems to be the way it is, although many will argue that it wasn't a choice, they 'discovered' that about themselves. I am also sure that they have no clue as to the depths of the trap they are putting themselves in.

There is very little data given in this story to do any in-depth dissection of the information. The son he married is now in his late 20's. How the age ranges of the two other identified-as-gay children fit in the story is not stated just as the sex of the two is not mentioned. Nor do we have a definitive statement from the other two, just this "minister's" say-so, which may only be an attempt to justify his act by covering it with some liberal touchy-feely..

If we accept as truth the statement that 75% of his children are gay there are some conclusions that we can correctly draw, and some very plausible speculations that could be offered.

First conclusion is that these odds are off balance. With generally 2-3% of population identifying as homosexual, to have 75% of siblings so identifying is way beyond the distribution curve. With developmental psyc's telling us that a child learns gender-identifying characteristics from that sex parent, a highly statistical conclusion can be drawn that this 'minister' failed miserably in presenting a clear version of 'man-ness' that his children could identify with.

There could be many scenarios that combine to produce this affect. Possibly the father was so involved in his 'ministry' that home things were relegated to the back burner leaving the sons (making an assumption for the sake of the example) to seek out male companionship and acceptance from another and opening them up to possible sexual molestation (a statistically high percentage of homosexual-identifying males acknowledge a sexual encounter with an older male often around onset of puberty.) Possibly the father even if he was 'there' was just distant and cold, again offering a skewed image of man-ness (and conveying a messed up idea of a Father God as well.) Either of these is a viable conclusion if only because of the high percentage of affected children (meaning whatever male image example he portrayed it affected all or most all of his children - as opposed to just one feeling ignored and rejected.)

We can engage in suppositioning a myriad of possibilities but we are not offered sufficient information to go much further. It is unfortunate for these children that very few who follow this path are able to "change their tune" as you say and in a large part because there is no desire to change once they have tied their self-identity to the 'gay' horse...

Something tells me it will be somewhat lighter than community service.

Our judicial system in the United Methodist church is much like the US government's. My sense about punishment is that it will be moderate. First, the guy admitted to the gay marriage ceremony. Second, it is apparently his first offense (that's known). Third, his record to date has been positive.

Stacked against that is that he doesn't appear to be at all remorseful.

I will bet on a one or two year suspension from the pulpit along with a requirement for reflection, counseling, and study.

JMHO.

40
posted on 11/19/2013 7:33:04 AM PST
by xzins
( Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for victory!)

No law is going to do away with homosexuality -- it's part of being in the human race.

Laws never do away with any sin. Laws control sin to keep sin from overcoming civilization.

So, what other things are part of the human race? Murder, rape, adultery, stealing, arson, and the list goes on. Under your philosophy, we would eliminate laws against these also. Your philosophy is pure liberal philosophy.

I would say your philosophy is authoritarian tyrant, a far cry from limited government conservatism. Pass all the laws you want, just like with murder and stealing and arson and adultery and all the others, although the crimes of murder and violent aggression are in a different class than adultery and homosexuality, I do truly hope you agree.

I guarantee you that 5,000 years from now, all those vices will still be evident in any race of human beings. Laws don't prevent them -- behaviors do, values taught in religion, do. As for the effectivess of laws, they've been chopping off the hands of thieves in the Middle East for centuries. Yet thievery there still exists.

So you think that the Christian "conservative" approach is to advocate for law that aggressively pursues and hushes any outward evidence of homosexuality?

I'd rather STOP and RESTRAIN law that would, for example, punish a theme park for refusing to allow openly gay men in where children were present. It should be LEGAL, and protect right, that a theme park could do just that, and a school could absolutely rise up and slam the door in the faces of "gay pride" advocates without worry of the state or federal "moral" government punishing it for being homophobic.

Laws don't control sin -- they punish offenders. Laws are necessary, they are right, in that respect. Capital punishment I believe in fully because it isn't punishment, it's an example of a law keeping something bad from overcoming again.

The Founding Fathers didn't include laws against all kinds of things in the Constitution. They trusted it to their moral Christian compatriots to do it another way, and they did. Your "libertarian" template is badly flawed, I think, unless I read you wrong.

A (fellow Catholic) friend was troubled that we were demanding from "gays" what we demand from no one else: that they live a life of loneliness and frustration. Thinking about it, I realized he was making the assumption that for the rest of us, heteros, life is just a sexual wonderland with no sacrifice, or not that much sacrifice.

I think the God-honest truth is that almost all of us, for part of our lives at least, have to live a level of sexual continence which is more difficult than we were bargaining for.

You are living a difficult sexual continence when you are young and full of fire, but unmarried;

or when, after years of careful discernment, you have taken a vow of celibacy and BAM! Mr. or Ms. Made-for-You glides smilingly into your life;

and again when you are married but because of geographic distance or chronic illness or disability, your spouse is long absent from your embrace;

and again if you have a wrecked marriage in your background, civilly divorced but canonically still valid;

or when your spouse emotionally "unfriends" but an old acquaintance is suddenly sending out vibes of friend-friend-friend and like-like-like.

What I'm saying is that everybody, no matter what their "orientation," has to learn to live chastity with an uneasy grace, not infrequently through long seasons of loneliness and struggle.

There's no room for "triumphalism" here by "straights"; neither is there room for "pride" by "gays". What Christ teaches us through His Law is right, because it is based on the truth about our human nature, and on our own real flourishing in this life and in the next.

But living it is not easy for anyone. Living it requires ardent prayers for each one of us, by the whole Communion of Saints .

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.